How to Effectively & Efficiently Respond to FOI Requests (A - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner Ontario, Canada

How to Effectively & Efficiently Respond to FOI Requests

(A Regulator’s View)

36th Annual COGEL Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania December 8, 2014

Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada (IPC)

• Ensures that provincial and municipal government organizations

comply with freedom of information and privacy laws in Ontario;

• Resolves access to information appeals when the government

refuses to grant access to government-held information;

• Power to issue binding orders requiring government organizations

to take specific actions;

• Investigates pubic sector privacy and health privacy complaints.

FIPPA and MFIPPA: Ontario’s Statutory Framework

• The right to file an access request is set out in FIPPA (provincial

government institutions) and MFIPPA (municipal government institutions).

• FIPPA and MFIPPA provide for a number of mandatory and

discretionary exemptions from the right of access. For example, the personal privacy exemption (mandatory) and law enforcement exemption (discretionary).

• FIPPA and MFIPPA also prescribe the procedures to be followed

when making an access request and procedures that government institutions must follow when responding to access requests.

IPC Role

• IPC becomes involved when a requester is dissatisfied with

government institution’s response to foi request and files an appeal;

• Three step appeal process – Intake, Mediation, Adjudication;
• Most appeals resolved at Intake or Mediation – our staff gain

valuable insight into how institutions can respond more effectively to requests and avoid appeals.

The Requester’s Obligations

• The requester must:

– Make the request in writing; – Provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee, upon reasonable effort to identify the records; – Pay the fee.

The Institution’s Obligations

• The institution must respond to the requester in writing within 30

days following the date when the request was clarified unless the records contain third party commercial or business information,

• r the personal information of another individual.
• Where third party information or the personal information of

another individual is at issue, the institution must notify the affected organization or individual and consider their views before making a decision about access.

What Prevents Effective Responses?

• Lack of resources/time
• Inadequate training
• Experience – many institutions are small and rarely receive

requests

• Difficult clients
• Institutional Inertia
• Bad legal advice

Clarify the Request

 Often, requesters do not know the kinds of records an institution has in its custody or control. As a result, some requests do not provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee with reasonable effort to identify the record(s) requested.

Clarifying a Request (cont’d)

• FIPPA s. 24(2) and MFIPPA s. 17(2) state: “If the request does not

sufficiently describe the record sought, the institution shall inform the applicant of the defect and shall offer assistance in reformulating the request…”

• Our office has issued Orders finding that the institution should

have informed the requester of the defects in the request and

• ffered assistance in reformulating the request.1
• The most user-friendly approach to clarifying a request is to

telephone the requester and discuss the matter.

1 Orders P-134, PO-1730, MO-2279-I, PO-2634

Standard clarification questions

• Are you interested in any particular records?
• Do the records you are requesting involve a specific incident?
• Are you interested in access to another individual’s personal

information?

• Do the records in which you are interested involve a specific time

period? (For example, “…all information related to X, between April 1, 1991 and March 31, 1992.”)

• Are you seeking records from a particular branch or from a

particular geographic region?

• Have you already spoken with a specific branch or with particular

individuals from the government organization? Can you name the branch or individuals? (May help avoid a duplication of effort.)

Narrow the Request

 Take advantage of any time available before responding to the request to narrow it.  Work with the requester to identify interest based solutions – what is the bottom line?  Work with the program area responsible for generating the responsive records to find creative solutions.  Explain the benefits that result from narrowing the request.

Index of Records

• An index of records can benefit the institution, the requester, and

can also be helpful in the event of an appeal.

• An index assists in keeping track of all records and the decisions

reached for each of them, and is a very effective resolution tool.

• Provide the index to the requester at the earliest opportunity.

Index of Records (cont’d)

An index of records should include:

• Document number and description of each record;
• Indication for each record whether access granted or refused or

whether part or parts of the record severed;

• For each record or part of a record refused, the provision of the

Act under which access refused (provide copies of the sections of the Act cited);

• For each record or part of a record refused, the reason the

provision applies to the record;

Time Extensions

A institution may extend the time limit beyond the 30 days for a period of time that is reasonable in the circumstances, where,

• the request is for a large number of records or necessitates a

search through a large number of records and meeting the time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the institution; or

• consultations with a person outside the institution are necessary

to comply with the request and cannot reasonably be completed within the time limit.

Elements of an Adequate Decision Letter

• Provide an index of records if you have not done so previously. If

you have provided an index of records, ensure that the index is up to date;

• Provide the requester with information about the charging or

waiving of a fee in connection with the request;

• Provide details regarding why an exemption applies or why

records are not response (e.g. police officer notes about unrelated incidents);

• Provide the name and the position of the person responsible for

making the decision.

Frivolous and Vexatious Requests

• A person does not have a right of access if the institution is of the
• pinion on reasonable grounds that the request for access is

frivolous or vexatious: – the request is part of a pattern of conduct that amounts to an abuse of the right of access or would interfere with the

• perations of the institution; or

– the request is made in bad faith or for a purpose other than to

• btain access.
• The threshold for claiming the frivolous or vexatious exemption is

high, and it will generally not be successful if institutions simply claim they do not have enough resources.

MO-2488

• High number of requests: 54 requests with 372 parts in total (an

average of 6.5 parts per request).

• Requests excessively broad and unusually detailed: Open ended

wording (“any and all”, “including but not limited to”).

• Purpose of the request for an objective other than access: The

appellant already possessed many of the emails requested.

• Timing of the requests: The close timing of appellant’s lawsuit and

requests was a relevant factor in favour of finding an abuse of the right of access.

What makes a request frivolous/vexatious?

• Number of requests
• Nature and scope of requests – excessively broad/identical to

previous requests

• Timing of requests – connected to some other event
• Purpose of requests – “nuisance” value/harass

government/burden system

• Nature and quality of interaction/contact between requester and

foi staff

The adjudicator imposed limits on the processing of the appellant’s requests:

• For a period of one year, only one transaction by the appellant

may proceed at any given point in time;

• The City may decide the order in which it wishes to process the

remaining requests the appellant would like to keep open;

• After the one year period, the appellant or the City may apply to

the IPC to ask that the conditions be varied. Otherwise, the conditions continue in effect until such time as a variance is sought and ordered.

Conditions on Frivolous/Vexatious Requests

Appellant Conditions

In addition, the adjudicator imposed conditions on the appellant:

• The appellant must specify the exact information or records

sought, and if possible, the location in which the records may be found;

• Each request must only deal with one subject matter and must

seek specific information, and will not include the phrases “any and all” and “but not limited to”;

• Apart from the request, the appellant or a representative of the

appellant cannot otherwise contact the City (verbally or written), unless the City initiates the contact to clarify the request;

• Otherwise, the City is not required to respond to the appellant.

MO-3049

• A municipality claimed that three requests for access to its

cheque registry and credit card expenses were frivolous or vexatious pursuant to s. 4(1)(b) MFIPPA.

• Municipality argued that due to its small size and budget, it

cannot employ a full-time FOIP coordinator, and the person with those duties often finds it difficult to respond to requests within the 30 day limit.

• The IPC found that the requests were not frivolous or vexatious

and ordered the town to provide a decision letter in response to the requests.

MO-3049 (cont’d)

The IPC provided suggestions to improve the efficiency of the town’s FOI system given its small size:

• Publish responses to FOI requests on the town’s website;
• Be more proactive about releasing information (‘Access by

Design’);

• Seek a time extension in accordance with s. 20(1) MFIPPA;
• Utilize fee provisions set out in s. 45(1) MFIPPA;
• Provide reasons for refusing access as required by s. 20.1(1)(b)

when claiming that the request is frivolous or vexatious.

Most Effective Response – Avoid Process Entirely

• While formal foi process may be required, dissemination of

government-held information can be accomplished through other mechanisms

• Ontario moving to increase the amount of proactive disclosure of

information

• Province and municipalities finally embracing the Open Data

movement

Published Sunshine List

• All government salaries more than $100,000 published yearly

Ontario Government Expenses

Open Government Engagement Team Open by Default Report

Highlights need for improvement of the FOI framework:

• Reform Acts by basing them on the

principals of Open by Default and requiring the proactive publication

• f certain types of information.
• Reform the FOI process so that

government systems can receive, process and respond to information requests online and in machine-readable formats.

• Publish FOI responses online as

soon as they are released to the requestor(s).

Open By Default: Make Data A Public Asset

Implement an Open by Default data policy the includes:

• Publish all government data in commonly accepted open

standards, unless there are privacy, security or legal reasons for not doing so.

• Publish data in a timely manner.
• Data should free of charge and in commonly-used formats
• Ensure no data is destroyed
• Waive intellectual property for data the government collects or

creates

• Extend these principles to agencies and broader public sector

Open by Default

Amend FIPPA to require proactive publication of certain types of data:

• Briefing notes
• Survey data
• Policy papers
• Expenditure info
• Completed FOI responses

Open By Default: Fees

• Require ministries to pay for all costs associated with

freedom of information requests when:

• The ministry fails to meet required timelines for

response (ex. 30 days) or;

• No fees chargeable for responding to freedom of

information requests for information on new IT systems.

Resources (www.ipc.on.ca)

• “IPC Practices No. 1: Drafting a Letter Refusing

Access to a Record”

• “IPC Practices No. 15: Clarifying Access Requests”
• “IPC Practices No. 22: Routine Disclosure/Active

Dissemination (RD/AD) of Government Information”

• “Basic Tool Kit for New Co-ordinators”
• “Processing Voluminous Requests: A Best Practice

for Institutions”

• “Access by Design: The 7 Fundamental Principles”

How to Contact Us

Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario 2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 1A8 Phone: (416) 326-3333 / 1-800-387-0073 TDD/TTY: 416-325-7539 Web: www.ipc.on.ca E-mail: info@ipc.on.ca Media: media@ipc.on.ca / 416-326-3965